As Elmer Fudd might say, Vewy, vewy swowly. Divine revelation didnt happen in a blinding flashsuch as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them .) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I dont pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.

So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the worldwhich might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole apple incident, combined with crude deductions that boil down to Nothing comes from nothing. But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.

The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligans Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles7 of them, instead of 613and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. Thats the reason that Jews dont generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:

Dont worship idols.

Dont kill the innocent.

Dont steal.

Dont fornicate.

Dont blaspheme God.

Dont eat pieces of animals while theyre still alive.

Resolve your disputes through impartial judges.

Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensicalthough we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.

Q. not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure theyre mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.

Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.

Look, theres a reason why Catholics dont read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and havent since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegorywhich means that on top of some historical content (and theres flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we dont use this principle to explain away Jesus miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literallyexcept for This is my body, (Luke 22: 19) Thou art Peter, (Matthew 16: 18) and No, your pastor cant get divorced. (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.

Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?

In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldnt we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primarysome of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Marys childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the Gospel of Thomas, which has Jesus using His superpowers to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovahs Witnesses who come to my door: that bible youre waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographicwho every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas To-do list.

In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scripturesbut with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the faithful remnant whod remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abrahams sacrifice, and Isaiahs references to the suffering servant. The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet whod tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom theyd gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name .

The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul convertedbooks that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabeeswhich means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But dont tell the judges in New York City, or theyll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.

As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom theyd gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name .

Here's an example of that dumb stuff. The "Church" he refers to is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church and he says it spread and gained political clout then he claims "Christians" began to shamefully mistreat the Jews. The only thing is, genuine Christians weren't the ones doing these acts since the Holy Spirit would not be leading them to act against the law of God and do wrong to their neighbors. So, the "Church" (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church) was really who did the persecuting and mistreating not only to Jews but to the genuine Christians who refused to follow the false religious leaders who presumed to speak and act for all of Christendom. This writer, in trying to sound humorous, only exposes his own lack of knowledge about the truth and the joke's on him.

103
posted on 04/03/2013 9:05:10 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

"I imagine if someone tried to convince you that God cant be a piece of bread, you would adopt much the same attitude."

There is a difference between substance and property. The divine substance (epiousios) in the Eucharist has no relation to its host which maintains the properties of bread. Think of this as an encounter with the Jesus in the first century. Although He was 100% man and 100% God there would be no way for you to scientifically or forensically establish His divinity.

Peace be with you

105
posted on 04/03/2013 9:07:15 PM PDT
by Natural Law
(Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)

You didn’t even bother to read the quote. Cajetan differentiates between the two “canonicals.” The apocrypha are only considered useful so far as they provide “edification of the faithful.” They are not brought over for matters of confirming doctrine. IOW, they do are not useful for reproof, correction, for doctrine, etc, but are useful in the same sense as a good Christian movie is useful.

“Hmm, that wouldnt have anything to do with your churchs proscriptions of Incense, now would it? I can see why Luther might want to chop that out of his bible.”

It has to do with my church’s proscription against witchcraft as found in the Books of Moses. The angel isn’t teaching to burn incense. He is teaching how to use fish guts to ward off evil spirits.

“Truly, truly. This I tell you - whatsoever you did for the least of these - you also did for me.”

This does not vindicate Tobit’s teaching that alms giving results in the washing away of sins, and wards off death and darkness.

“Youve been called out on this before. King of Babylon became King of Assyria when Babylon defeated Assyria.”

So did the King of Babylon move from ruling in Babylon to ruling in Ninveh?

Judith 1:5, Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in NINIVE the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.

Sorry, but that is illogical.

“Even to describes an upper bounded limit.”

The upper bounded limit is 70 years:

Jer_25:11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Jer_25:12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.

Jer_29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

Dan_9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Zec_7:5 Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh month, even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?

“Oddly fitting to go with the Epistles of the least of the Apostles.”

What?

“Ah, so we accept the Magisterium when it agrees with you and disregard the Magisterium when it disagrees with you.”

You’d be surprised how much the Magisterium of those centuries disagreed with you.

For example, “Pope” Gregory the 1st maintained that the See of Peter was ruled by three Bishops. Thus, the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome were all Popes as you would today define them.:

Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us.  In the Eulogy to the Bishop of Alexandria

Theodoret references the same belief when he places the throne of Peter under the Bishop of Antioch:

Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles. Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.

“Do you believe that the Magisterium has authority over the Body of Christ?”

Obviously not, since it is the Word of God that must have authority over the Word’s Body.

I admit that all of the Epistles of Paul are scripture, as defined by the scripture itself. But as to “where they come from.” They come from the hands of Paul who wrote them and distributed them among the church, as ordained by God. Ignatius and Polycarp, for example, quotes from the vast majority of the New Testament, indicating their usage and well-known place in the church long before the end of the first century. Meanwhile, none of these writers, not even Clement, mentions the Papacy or its traditions.

“The divine substance (epiousios) in the Eucharist has no relation to its host which maintains the properties of bread.”

Exactly, as the divine substance of God’s Word has no relation to the paper and ink, which maintain the properties of paper and ink. The bread is the body of Christ, Christ is the Word, and the Word is the bread of life. Those terms are not coincidental or inconsequential, but direct analogs, pointing to the same divine being, Jesus Christ.

They tell me that Scripture is self-proving, for God is self-proving. When he stood before Abram, or Noah, or Saul, he didnt need any stamp of approval from a religious body, and neither does his Word. If a man met Christ and denied Him, it wasnt because the evidence that Jesus was Christ was missing, and if a man reads the Bible and denies it is the Word of God, neither is that because the evidence of the provenance is missing from the Bible.

Excellent answer! The Divinely-inspired (which means "God-breathed") Scriptures have authority over anything and anyone who presumes to be above them. Man can NEVER be the authority over God's word!

110
posted on 04/03/2013 9:26:53 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

Of course they are nonsense. The Bible is, in point of fact, the greatest example of “Public Domain” that exists, since its Author explicitly commanded for it to be distributed freely to everyone in the entire world!

Amazing isn't it...how God reaches down thru ‘His’ pages to us personally, to such an extent we can't miss it.

Ever wonder why it was you began to read it yourself...being an atheist and all?

I began reading it because I needed some answers for a situation I was facing. When you're out of resources and those you have aren't coming thru with what you need to hear....I figured I'd go to the only place I hadn't looked which might shed some light on the situation.

God never addressed the situation I went there for.....He did a U-turn instead!

BTW I'm still laughing he “nuked your heart”....never heard it quite said that way....

The author of the article and many posters here seem to forget the role of God in communicating His Word to each and every believer in their human spirit. He is a living God, not a dead God, nor does He leave the sanctification of our souls to those also dead or out of fellowship with Him.

Amen! You got that right!!!

114
posted on 04/03/2013 9:43:15 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

Ok...I understand your point...I think there are those who have been raised with religious upbringing who do, at some point have a need to discover what is true for themselves as well, rather than just hold to what someone taught them. It has to be real for them and not just teaching they are expected to believe.

Given that these passages were in the Vulgate prior to Luther, then yes, he took them out.

Luther did NOT take any books out of the Bible. I've referenced this work a half a dozen times just in the last six months. Please take a few moments to educate yourself about what is the truth about this rather than what deceivers want people to think. Here it is again:

An obvious sign that someone has not read anything about Luther and the canon is the assertion, Luther removed books from the Bible, or Luther removed books from the New Testament. It is a simple historical fact that Luthers translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. He published sections of the Old Testament as he finished them. He finished the entire Bible by 1534. During these years, various incomplete editions were released. Some Protestants might be surprised to learn that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. The editors of Luthers Works explain, In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.﻿﻿﻿[9]

Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.[10] Great care and work went into Luthers Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, The work was done with great method [11] Todd then relates this famous description:

Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctors cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.[12]

Thus, Luthers Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.

Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with Luther removed books from the canon. For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luthers Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.

121
posted on 04/03/2013 10:04:26 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

No but some certainly seem to go to a lot of trouble to diminish it's importance.After all,so much of it is simply poetic stories and can't be taken at face value.

Ever wonder why? I think it is because they know that some of what they teach goes against what the Scriptures teach. If everything matches perfectly, then there wouldn't be a need to assert authority over what God has given us. The Roman Catholic Church says that the Scriptures+Tradition*+the Church Magesterium = the truth of the Christian faith. *Tradition being what they claim was orally taught but not written down in the Bible. That way, whenever anyone notices that a RC teaching is contradicted by Scripture, they can say that whatever the Church teaches is the truth and you just have to take their word for it because they are THE church. All the past mistakes and corrections that have happened over the course of their history is marked off as simply "development" of doctrine - the Church growing in her understanding of the truth or human errors that weren't "official".

Much like the author of this thread article, they explain away things they get wrong or don't accept as, "God didn't MEAN it to be taken literally!" or, "Just trust us on this.". If I have to choose between man says or what God says, there would be no hesitation...God's word trumps man's!

122
posted on 04/03/2013 10:50:03 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

"If I have to choose between man says or what God says, there would be no hesitation...God's word trumps man's!"

Amen to that dear sister! and of course we will have to answer to God for that...for "how readest thou?"...I am happy to have to answer for that!

Over the years I've spoken to many who profess Christ and also over those years I have come to prick up my 'spiritual ears' when anyone starts preaching 'their' particular church instead of Jesus.It happens a lot and since reading the RF over the years it's become apparent that none hold a candle to the RC in that department.I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong but we are supposed to preach "Christ and Him crucified" and that,on the RF is far more rare than it should be!

God's grace to you bb and thankyou for your patience in posting the same rebuttals over and over and over again!

124
posted on 04/04/2013 1:03:18 AM PDT
by mitch5501
("make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall")

As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by the evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it againand being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words, that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written; and if I should bring forth the same words again, or, in other words, if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up the hearts of this generation, that they might not receive this work: but behold, the Lord said unto me, I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing: therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained; and behold ye shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will shew unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the Devil. Wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, I have, through his grace and mercy, accomplished that which he hath commanded me respecting this thing. I would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken, were found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New-York.

THE AUTHOR.

AUTHOR!!!

135
posted on 04/04/2013 4:30:12 AM PDT
by Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)

until then there was no infallible, indisputable canon Were they included in Gutenbergs bible?

Its Old Testament included the books that Jerome considered apocryphal, plus books considered apocryphal by Catholics, 3 and 4 Esdras (note nomenclature can be confusing) Prayer of Manasseh and i have read that Clement VIII later moved these to the appendix.

And why did the Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament, and soon receive papal sanction?

As for the Vulgate, the apocrypha came to be included, if not uniformly or universally in all versions and "In his famous 'Prologus Galeatus', or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he (Jerome) declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament).

Moreover, the inclusion of apoc. books in the GB is irrelevant as it does not infer or establish an indisputable canon prior of Trent, and that Luther dissented from one and was a maverick in doing do is untenable.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)

The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.

Decrees by non-ecumenical early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence were not infallible, and thus doubts and disputes among scholars continued right into Trent. The decision of Trent in 1546 was the first infallible indisputable and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17, and see below) after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

Luther's own Bible contained the apocrypha, save for 1 and 2 Esdra, but separately as per an ancient tradition denoting their "second canon' status. The page to see on Luther's canon is here .

The Catholic Encyclopedia (Canon of the Old Testament) affirms, the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. ...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

The Eastern Orthodox theologian Demetrios J. Constantelos also observed, "The early church as a whole did not take a definite position for or against the Deuterocanonicals. Church leaders and ecclesiastical writers of both the Greek east and Latin west were not in full agreement. Some preferred the Hebrew canon, while others accepted the longer canon that included the Deuterocanonicals. The ambivalence of ecumenical and local synods (Nicea, 325 CE; Rome, 382; Laodicea, 365; Hippo, 393) was resolved by the Trullan Synod (692). It adopted deliberations of councils that had favored the shorter list, and decisions of other synods that had advocated the longer list" . See his article Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 174.

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Hubert_Jedin explained. he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship at the Council of Trent. Jedin writes that his position was

Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)

While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship. (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)

Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm Not only was the canon not settled before Trent, with Trent following one of two scholarly tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired, but it is still a matter of debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils: More here on all this.

Thus while Roman Catholics often charge that Luther excluded some books as being Scripture due to doctrinal reasons, Luther did have some scholarly reasons and concurrence in Rome for his exclusions.

137
posted on 04/04/2013 4:34:16 AM PDT
by daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

An infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture Indeed. All it requires is Your Own Personal Opinion. You can have it your way.

So rather than arguing that an infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture, which you cannot, you presume that the alternative is "sola individualistica" (if there is such a word)?"

This is misleading as as SS disallows claiming assured infallibility, so that neither the individual nor the council are the supreme authority. It was by manifestation of the truth that a general consensus saw writings established as Scripture before there ever was a church in Rome, and which writings the church relied upon. And it is by "manifestation of the truth" (2Cor. 4:2) that the claim to be the church of the living (not dead) God continues to be established.

And yet all individuals, including Catholics, choose what they will believe from pastors, and engage in some interpretation. For they individually first choose to submit to Rome, and then to continue, and then often must engage in some interpretation of what is taught, and what magisterial level a teaching falls under, and thus what degree of assent is required. In addition, your last pope taught that over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands ones own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else.., even it is not an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

However, under Rome is where "sola individualistica" is supremely manifest, if the pope is not subject to ecumenical council as most Roman Catholics (Bellarmine, etc.) hold, and Dictatus Papae and other teaching affirms (thus no council, not even an Ecumenical one  which he must call and approve  has authority to depose a Pope against his will). Others hold that he is subject to councils, for his relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of "intrinsic cohesion."

138
posted on 04/04/2013 4:49:58 AM PDT
by daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

Relax. Read C.S. Lewis on Job, he gets it. The fact that a Biblical book is allegorical (like Job) or in the style of a pious Jewish fable (like Tobit) does NOT foreclose its value or its truth. The problem with the revisionist Bible “scholars” is not literary or historiographic analysis, but that they are bad scholars in that they set out to DISPROVE scripture.

NIV Matthew 2:5"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

NIV Matthew 4:1-111. Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4. Jesus answered, "It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " 5. Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "`He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' " 7. Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' " 8. Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." 10. Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: `Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' " 11. Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

NIV Matthew 11:10This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'

NIV Matthew 21:13"It is written," he said to them, "`My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a `den of robbers.' "

NIV Matthew 26:24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him.

NIV Matthew 26:31Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "`I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'

NIV Mark 7:6-76. He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

NIV Mark 9:11-1311. And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?" 12. Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13. But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."

NIV Mark 11:17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations' ? But you have made it `a den of robbers.' "

NIV Mark 14:27"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: "`I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'

NIV Luke 1:1-41. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

NIV Luke 4:17-1917. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:18. "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, 19. to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

NIV Luke 7:27This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'

NIV Luke 10:26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

NIV Luke 18:31-3331. Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33. On the third day he will rise again."

NIV Luke 20:17-1817. Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ' ? 18. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

NIV Luke 21:22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

NIV Luke 22:37It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

NIV Luke 24:44-4744. He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." 45. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47. and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

NIV John 2:17His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."

NIV John 6:31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' "

NIV John 6:45It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

NIV John 12:14-1614. Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,15. "Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt." 16. At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

NIV John 15:25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: `They hated me without reason.'

NIV John 20:30-3130. Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

NIV Acts 1:20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "`May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "`May another take his place of leadership.'

NIV Acts 7:42But God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: "`Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel?

NIV Acts 13:29When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.

NIV Acts 13:32-3332. "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers 33. he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "`You are my Son; today I have become your Father. '

NIV Acts 15:15-1815. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16. "`After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17. that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' 18. that have been known for ages.

NIV Acts 23:5Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: `Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.' "

NIV Acts 24:14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

NIV Romans 1:17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

NIV Romans 2:24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

NIV Romans 3:4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

NIV Romans 3:10-1210. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11. there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

NIV Romans 4:17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

NIV Romans 4:23-2423. The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone,24. but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

NIV Romans 8:36As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."

NIV Romans 9:13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

NIV Romans 9:33As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

NIV Romans 10:15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

NIV Romans 11:7-107. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8. as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." 9. And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever."

NIV Romans 11:26-2726. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

NIV Romans 12:19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

NIV Romans 14:11It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"

NIV Romans 15:3-43. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." 4. For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

NIV Romans 15:7-127. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9. so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: "Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name." 10. Again, it says, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people." 11. And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples." 12. And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him."

NIV Romans 15:21Rather, as it is written: "Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand."

NIV 1 Corinthians 1:19For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

NIV 1 Corinthians 1:31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

NIV 1 Corinthians 2:9However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" --

NIV 1 Corinthians 3:19-2019. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" ; 20. and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

NIV 1 Corinthians 4:6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

NIV 1 Corinthians 9:9For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry."

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

NIV 1 Corinthians 14:21In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-1413. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

NIV 2 Corinthians 4:13-1413. it is written: "I believed; therefore I have spoken." With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, 14. because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.

NIV 2 Corinthians 8:15as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

NIV Galatians 3:10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

NIV Galatians 3:13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

NIV Galatians 4:22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.

NIV Galatians 4:27For it is written: "Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband."

NIV Hebrews 10:7Then I said, `Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, O God.'"

NIV 1 Peter 1:15-16But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

NIV 2 Peter 3:16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

NIV 1 John 2:12-1412. I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. 13. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father. 14. I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

142
posted on 04/04/2013 5:16:22 AM PDT
by Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)

"In addition your last pope taught that over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands ones own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else..,

The pope did not make that comment outside the context of Gaudium et Specs or the Catechism. In all cases our consciences must be properly formed to be reliable.

CCC 1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

CCC 1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

CCC 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

CCC 1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

CCC 1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

CCC 1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

Peace be with you

144
posted on 04/04/2013 5:21:39 AM PDT
by Natural Law
(Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)

The Catholic Church is Divinely-Designed and she got her authority directly from Jesus, Our Lord and Saviour; all the other communities, all the other sects, (There is but One Church) have as their founders, sinful men. All of these truths used to but a tautology - today they must be stated repeatedly.

Repetitio est mater studiorum

Jesus established His Hierarchical Catholic Church upon the first Pope, Peter, (and the apostles - Bishops - in union with him) and every single word of the New Testament was written by a Catholic and those words were written to other Catholics in an already existing nascent Catholic Church; that is, the Catholic Church pre-existed the writing of the New Testament and which Testament is owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the Catholic Church and she alone has the authority to say what it does or does not mean.

It is not well known, but it is, nevertheless, true that one crucial criteria for what would or would not be included in the Canon of The New Testament is whether or not this or that Catholic Gospel or Catholic Epistle had been read at The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

145
posted on 04/04/2013 5:24:10 AM PDT
by Vermont Crank
(Invisible yet are signs of the force of Tradition that'll act upon our inertia into Indifferentism)

I think there are those who have been raised with religious upbringing who do, at some point have a need to discover what is true for themselves as well, rather than just hold to what someone taught them.

146
posted on 04/04/2013 5:27:49 AM PDT
by Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)

All the past mistakes and corrections that have happened over the course of their history is marked off as simply "development" of doctrine - the Church growing in her understanding of the truth or human errors that weren't "official".

Seems like another group has learned THIS lesson...

Mr. Millet:

I don't think we can ever transcend Joseph Smith or consider him to be a valued personality, but now we'll move on.

I don't think you'll see that among believers in the faith, because there are too many other things that came from him

that are the reasons why we do what we do and we are what we are. That there are unanswered questions, to be sure.

That there are things that I'm as anxious as the next guy to learn more detail on, I really want to know. But in the interim,

it really doesn't, doesn't trouble me.

We're in the religion-making business, as you intimated earlier, only for a short time, I mean, compared to the

Christian church, which has been at this for a couple of millennia. We're about halfway to Nicaea.

And so, and so in that sense  I remember a very tender moment. I was speaking with  I've been invited

to the Salt Lake Theological Seminary, basically an Evangelical seminary, to discuss a book I had done on Jesus.

And they had read it, and they wanted me to come and just respond to questions.

And it was, it was a very enjoyable couple of hours.

The very last question that was asked by one of my friends there was this one.

He said, 'Bob, what can we do for you?'

And I, I wasn't ready for that question. I said, 'What do you mean?'

He said, 'What can we, as Evangelicals, do for our Mormon friends?'

And I, I guess my mind could have gone a hundred different ways, but what I came back with was this.

I said, 'Boy, I appreciate you asking that. I don't think I've ever been asked that.'

But, but I said, 'Try this. Cut us a little slack, will you? Give us a little time.

We're in the religion-making business, and this takes time. It takes centuries.

And, and trying to explain the faith and articulate the faith, that doesn't come over night.

Dr. Zmirak is more than capable of error in his wise-acre rhetoric. And he is wrong about Genesis but what he wrote is to be expected for he writes for Crisis which is a Neo-Con enterprise.

Here is the authoritative Pontifical Biblical Commission

Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis

June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?

Answer: In the negative.

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?

Answer: In the negative to both parts.

III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?

Answer: In the negative.

IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?

Answer: In the affirmative.

V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?

Answer: In the negative. VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?

Answer: In the affirmative.

VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?

Answer: In the negative.

VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?

Answer: In the affirmative.

149
posted on 04/04/2013 5:31:25 AM PDT
by Vermont Crank
(Invisible yet are signs of the force of Tradition that'll act upon our inertia into Indifferentism)

...And the virgin birth?.....the feeding of the multitudes?.......and the raising of Lazurus?.....and the resurrection?....

It is a slippery slope indeed, and thus Trad RCs are reluctant to affirm the brand of RC scholarship the article of the OP expresses.

For a long time the devil, via Rome hindered Biblical literacy among the masses, but a second strategy is to reduce its authority by giving it a second or third class status, as Catholicism does, or by relegating historical accounts to fables, etc, and allowing allegorical meanings to predominate as the primary meaning.

And the reality is that the parameters of Rome, which rarely has infallibly defined Scripture texts (as the assured veracity of her teachings is not dependent upon positive warrant from Scripture - only that they do not contradict Scripture, according to her supreme interpretation) are such that RCs have a great deal of liberty to define Scripture texts as they see fit (such as when it comes to Mary).

And substantial disagreement can and does exists in Catholicism, and evangelicals testify to greater unity in core truths and moral views than their Catholic counterparts (being mostly liberal), whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death. And what you effectually teach is of greater testimony to your beliefs than what you officially says.

150
posted on 04/04/2013 5:32:03 AM PDT
by daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.